I am not an MJ fan in the least. I don't like pop music. but my take on it is that he did nothing lewd against any child. I feel like he was a child in and of himself, and he just enjoyed their company because his childhood was "stolen" by fame. he envied the innocence that he never got to experience.
there has never been a shred of evidence that wasn't circumstantial against him. just because he was weird doesn't mean he committed any criminal act.
it's a fucking witch hunt because he was different and rich.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Sure, thats the tabloid, ET version. Lots of art has nudity in it. The main and basically only book presented at 2005 trial was The Boy. Which as I said, was proven to have been a gift from a friend to MJ. It was an art book. The state made a big deal about it. Read the court transcripts. Its like presenting a list of items found in a suspects house and then saying "hey John, he did it, we found all this stuff". The trial transcripts show, and Wade Robeson and several other witnesses and friends backed the claim up, that the book wasn't explicit, that it was a gift, that MJ was a fan of art etc...
Your bullet list, or the "states" supposed finds, make no difference between art books and explicit books. Hell, take those massive 50 pound books you can find at the library, that list all the major art projects of the latest century. Theres some bizaare stuff in those too.
You seem to want to dismiss everything that is presented to you as nothing more than 'small potatoes'. Take his Thriller poster off your wall and look at the situation for what it is.
You call books with naked children in it 'art'... I call them child pornography. People came forward against this freak and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that point to a situation pretty difficult to deny. You can call all his accusers liars and frauds and you can also excuse his choice of tableside reading featuring naked boys as 'art' if you wish... but the people with an ounce of common sense don't wish to stick their heads in the sand and say that Michael Jackson was portrayed poorly in the press.
This weirdo loved prepubescent boys. So much that he tried to transform himself into one with the most obscene amount of cosmetic surgery one could ever hope to bear witness to. His money got him out of hot water. I would bet anything that attorneys advised their clients to take the money given that going to trial would not guarantee a conviction- especially with the amount of money they were stacked up against. He bought his 'innocence'.
And, to boot, his music is far from genius. It's pop music with dancing that appeals to the most simple tastes... in my opinion.
Might want to look at the thread again friend. The only side presented by everyone, almost to a man, was that MJ was a molester and a billion other things. I seem to be the only person presented another side of the story. And there is always two sides my friend. Ive yet to see a single person acknowledge anything about the Arvizo's or the Chandlers.
Im not going to sit by and watch people who dont know what they are talking about slander someone. I would have been the first guy in line to demand MJ's head if the evidence was there. The fact is, its just not. Two problematic confessions by two problematic families with less than stellar histories. That doesnt cut it for me. But ive always been someone who roots for fair justice.
I agree. You should turn off Nancy Grace and deal with the real MJ. Not the one we got crammed down our throats for decades as some wierdo oddball. He was a human being. Much of that junk we got peddled was a load of crap.
I am a person of integrity. And thus I demand others be as well. The fact that anyone would sit here with a straight face and say "The NE is a legitmate news source" tells you all you need to know about why we went to Iraq, and why some of the public still believes Saddam was involved in 9/11.
People want soundbytes. 30 second wrapups in Parade, or newsbytes. They dont have the patience to read two paragraphs into a story to decide the source is a tabloid rag.
Im not going to believe MJ abused kids because the evidence isnt there. Books, magazines do not a molester make.
Im waiting for chadwick and everyone else to invite us to their house to show us their internet history and their own magazines.
You can believe the Nancy Grace 30 second "he's a weirdo he did it" line. Or you can do a 30 second google search and find out the real story.
Why is it so hard for you to believe that the Arvizos and the Chandlers were exploitative people who used a friendship with MJ to tarnish his image and become big news? Why is that so hard to imagine?
Its not so hard to imagine because we know it to be demonstrably true, the Arvizos acted the SAME DAMN way with Leno, Tucker and Lopez. You really think they found MJ and went "OH DEAR LORD, I had a change of heart, he's worth hundreds of millions but we will treat him as a human being"?
It is very possible that he didn't actually touch anyone and that people are accusing him because he's eccentric and stinking rich but isn't it also possible that these are the same reasons that people are excusing his actions? I mean I hear a lot of 'he's a freak and has the money to cover it up so he must have done it' but I'm also hearing a lot of 'he was just a weirdo and child-like, they just wanted his money, he didn't do it'. I guess my point is, just because some have accused him in the past and either been unreliable or taken the hush money, does not mean we should shut the book on any future accusations.
“ "Thank you Palestrina. It’s a wonderful evening, it’s great to be here and I wanna dedicate you a super sexy song." " (last words of Mark Sandman of Morphine)
Adelaide 1998
Adelaide 2003
Adelaide 2006 night 1
Adelaide 2006 night 2
Adelaide 2009
Melbourne 2009
Christchurch NZ 2009
Eddie Vedder, Adelaide 2011
PJ20 USA 2011 night 1
PJ20 USA 2011 night 2
Adelaide BIG DAY OUT 2014
I am not an MJ fan in the least. I don't like pop music. but my take on it is that he did nothing lewd against any child. I feel like he was a child in and of himself, and he just enjoyed their company because his childhood was "stolen" by fame. he envied the innocence that he never got to experience.
there has never been a shred of evidence that wasn't circumstantial against him. just because he was weird doesn't mean he committed any criminal act.
it's a fucking witch hunt because he was different and rich.
THIS^. As I said, had there been some sort of smoking gun linking MJ to the two accusers you dont think that would have been front page news for all eternity? The books and magazines found didnt convict or get him found guilty, because the jury actually saw through the prosecutions lies. The books and magazines were big news because...they werent big news. It means nothing to have those books in your house. I own Fight Club. I happen to agree with Palaniuk's politics, but Im sure there are plenty who just like him for his writing, or like the movie because it has Brad in it, or whatever. The prosecutions laughable premise was that only a pedophile would own those books. And it was proven thats just not the case. You cant judge someone by the art they consume. Or the books on their bookshelves. Thats like puritanical garbage there my friends.
anyone who has read any cursory info on MJ knows about his childhood as you point out. I think, much like we see currently with Beiber and Demi Lovato and Amanda Bynes, fame early can seriously mess you up. I dont think MJ ever got over it, and spent the rest of his life trying to reclaim a childhood that was stolen from him.
As I said, sleepovers with minors, and all that, that may be frowned upon, but it doesnt prove anything in terms of saying "yeah he did it". And its actually a huge leap.
Its sickening how someone like MJ can be branded something and no amount of evidence to the contrary can move people to reaccess. But when you post factual information about the parents of the accusers, few if anyone even responds.
I also think its a bit of ego as well. People want to believe that all those decades of jokes, and innuendo, and ridicule and name calling that the press and everyone else did of MJ, was some how justified.
The idea that he may actually have been completely innocent, and that he died as a result of the pain and ridicule and harassment he recieved I think people don't want to hear it or believe it. I think its obvious the drug use was a result of all this.
I think theres ample evidence that this was actually the case.
People have an image in their mind, and most people dont like being told they are wrong.
If MJ was innocent his last 20 years would be seen as essentially the media and public hounding him to death. And I think thats exactly what happened
It is very possible that he didn't actually touch anyone and that people are accusing him because he's eccentric and stinking rich but isn't it also possible that these are the same reasons that people are excusing his actions? I mean I hear a lot of 'he's a freak and has the money to cover it up so he must have done it' but I'm also hearing a lot of 'he was just a weirdo and child-like, they just wanted his money, he didn't do it'. I guess my point is, just because some have accused him in the past and either been unreliable or taken the hush money, does not mean we should shut the book on any future accusations.
Makes sense. But if the evidence isnt there, it isnt there, and then you either need to uncover this missing evidence linking him to it, or you drop the case and say "not guilty". Both cases that were brought to trial seem to scream exploitation and extortion of MJ by the families of the accusers. Could he have abused others but not those boys? Highly unlikely.
I think its clear both cases were extortion. And that shows a pattern. On both parties. I think MJ was desperate for friendship and to be a kid and let anyone in his life, even those who took advantage of him. His doctor is prime example. But I think it also shows that people took advantadge of him because he was rich.
Any time someone talks about extortion or makes up stories, that usually for me, sends a red flag that this person is a liar and not trustworthy. But in the media world, that just fuels the ratings.
and as far as music goes, anyone who says MJ;'s musical legacy isnt gargantuan is just plain ignorant. Period.
Makes no difference whether or not I agree with you on anything in this thread...but can the mindset of "if you think this, you're some form of a fucking idiot" stuff? This is the third or fourth time you've painted people with the same brush you don't want used on Michael Joe.
It negates much else of value, at least from here.
and as far as music goes, anyone who says MJ;'s musical legacy isnt gargantuan is just plain ignorant. Period.
Makes no difference whether or not I agree with you on anything in this thread...but can the mindset of "if you think this, you're some form of a fucking idiot" stuff? This is the third or fourth time you've painted people with the same brush you don't want used on Michael Joe.
It negates much else of value, at least from here.
I dont know. I respect peoples right to disagree, but this thread really hasnt been about examining the sides of the issue. Its been for the most part a lets dump on MJ thread. The OP blatantly posted an article written by a supermarket tabloid, and I think expected people to go along with it and not come back with facts about things. Im not willing to do that. Refusing to acknowledge proven facts like proven extortion, lies and the like also negates any point the OP or anyone else was trying to make. It goes both ways, hedonist. The "MJ haters" arent acting civilized. Calling him names, slurring him. Thats not really kosher, nor is it polite, or even justified.
And in general, i would in real life, act the same way if I met someone who said "The Beatles arent that good" or "Nirvana werent revolutionary' or "I hate Pink Floyd"
Theres some things I think that you can sort of agree as being important and essential whether or not you like them.
Same with MJ and his music. people that are saying his music sucks or he wasnt important honestly dont have a grasp on music history or MJ's music.
There also is a correlation between the tabloid media/tmz and all that, and the sort of lies people believe. It masks larger issues. When we are focusing on Beibers meltdown, we arent focusing on issues that really matter.
Thats just the facts hedonist.
Its one thing to say you dont like the music, you are free to dislike OTW and Thriller and Bad and Dangerous, but to write him off by saying "his music sucks, he isnt important", is the height of everything I dislike about people who listen to "only music they like" and nothing else. People take things like that seriously. And make it seem like it matters.
Personally I dont care what MJ did to his skin, or whether he had the elephant man's bones, or whether he slept in a hyperbaric chamber. He was an incredible dancer, an incredible musician, and a brilliant artist.
personally id like to debate the issue. But, you know hedonist, if people are posting articles written by a tabloid thats really not a legitimate thing to do. Its silly and irresponsible and that should be plain as day. You want to debate the issue? Well then, Post articles by reputable sources.
and as far as music goes, anyone who says MJ;'s musical legacy isnt gargantuan is just plain ignorant. Period.
Says the guy that every no-name band in the last decade is destined for 'classic' status along the lines of Zeppelin and the Stones. The way you go on in the other thread... anyone who has farted into a microphone borders on awesome. In actuality, Michael Jackson is gargantuan because mindless fools dance to it and sing along with the really simple lyrics. This fact doesn't make him a musical genius- my point stands.
You haven't merely presented a side... you've pushed hard to make MJ a victim instead of the pedophile which he is. Possession of what you call 'art' (child pornography) and having his money and lawyers squash shitty little people is enough to convince most people that this is not a cool situation to say the least.
This isn't about logical debate and discussion... this is about you having your head in a place it shouldn't be and expecting others to have their's there too.
I am not an MJ fan in the least. I don't like pop music. but my take on it is that he did nothing lewd against any child. I feel like he was a child in and of himself, and he just enjoyed their company because his childhood was "stolen" by fame. he envied the innocence that he never got to experience.
there has never been a shred of evidence that wasn't circumstantial against him. just because he was weird doesn't mean he committed any criminal act.
it's a fucking witch hunt because he was different and rich.
Don't... touch... children.
He did. He was weird. It doesn't excuse him from acting poorly. Any other adult in society would be facing serious scrutiny as well given the same circumstnaces- except they wouldn't have the same amount of support behind them to suppress the ramifications for behaving so poorly.
and as far as music goes, anyone who says MJ;'s musical legacy isnt gargantuan is just plain ignorant. Period.
Says the guy that every no-name band in the last decade is destined for 'classic' status along the lines of Zeppelin and the Stones. The way you go on in the other thread... anyone who has farted into a microphone borders on awesome. In actuality, Michael Jackson is gargantuan because mindless fools dance to it and sing along with the really simple lyrics. This fact doesn't make him a musical genius- my point stands.
You haven't merely presented a side... you've pushed hard to make MJ a victim instead of the pedophile which he is. Possession of what you call 'art' (child pornography) and having his money and lawyers squash shitty little people is enough to convince most people that this is not a cool situation to say the least.
This isn't about logical debate and discussion... this is about you having your head in a place it shouldn't be and expecting others to have their's there too.
Nah, i just have a open mind, and am willing to listen to stuff beyond alt rock radio. I dont have to ask mommy for permission to listen to stuff that doesnt fit a certain format or genre style or the parameters of this board or any other board.
Anyone who acts like classic acts havent existed in the last 10 years sounds like an old and bitter 80 year old who complains about the "youngins on the front lawn".
Ive always been interested in the importance and musicality of pop music and avantegarde stuff. People who listen to some sort of style exclusively are boring and staid. We have trillions of styles of music out there, who in the hell wants to spend their entire life listening to only one genre?
MJ changed music forever. Via dance. Via song. Via song writing. Via music videos. Thriller and Off the Wall and Bad and Dangerous changed the musical and artistic landscape. His dance moves rival that of the greats like Gene Kelly and James Brown and Astaire. His music videos were more like mini movies and pushed the art form forward. And he wrote and recorded plain brilliant songs.
Ive never understood the idea that simple catchy songs equal not important or are somehow lesser than a Dylan or Radiohead song. We need both. And quite honestly, the catchy simple songs get stuck in our heads for a reason. SOmebody That I Used To Know is a simple song. But theres a reason Gotye blew up after that. Its a brilliant song. It just is. He wasnt Dylan in it, and he didnt need to be. Wonderwall really isnt that impressive lyrically. But its one of the greatest songs of all time. To me, catchy and simple are positive. Nick Drake wrote simple songs. The Beatles entire catalogue are simple songs. Why do you think that whenever anyone is learning any instrument, begins learning THOSE songs first?
You have actually spoken down to several people- including myself.
You are not coming across as a person of integrity as you so proudly proclaimed. You're actually coming across as a something much different.
If you are 15... then excuse what I have said, but if you are older... then you might wish to revisit your tactics when trying to present an argument that Michael Jackson, a grown man who sleeps with little boys, was a victim of a public witch hunt after some really shitty families accused him of molesting their children when their children stayed the night at their place.
The families you speak of do have issues. I mean, who lets their child sleep over at a freak's house? But this issue aside... at a very minimum... MJ liked children and had some very inappropriate relations with them which is fucking terrible.
and as far as music goes, anyone who says MJ;'s musical legacy isnt gargantuan is just plain ignorant. Period.
Says the guy that every no-name band in the last decade is destined for 'classic' status along the lines of Zeppelin and the Stones. The way you go on in the other thread... anyone who has farted into a microphone borders on awesome. In actuality, Michael Jackson is gargantuan because mindless fools dance to it and sing along with the really simple lyrics. This fact doesn't make him a musical genius- my point stands.
You haven't merely presented a side... you've pushed hard to make MJ a victim instead of the pedophile which he is. Possession of what you call 'art' (child pornography) and having his money and lawyers squash shitty little people is enough to convince most people that this is not a cool situation to say the least.
This isn't about logical debate and discussion... this is about you having your head in a place it shouldn't be and expecting others to have their's there too.
So possession of art, which it was deemed by anyone who takes 10 seconds to google it, is tantmount to molestation.
Interesting. So, Janet Arvizo, who made up and took to court a lie that she was sexually assaulted at JC Penny, and demanded payment for it to the tune of 10's of thousands, so she gets a free pass? And Leno, Lopez and Tucker who all agreed that Janet was a theiving exploitative person who would do anything to get money, that is ignored too? Why? Why are art books that the prosecution lazily presented, why are those the only "facts" you acknowledge.
Its the prosecutions lazy and loser actions that result in ignorance. It takes what, a few phone calls to figure out the context of the books? Instead like those goons in the LAPD with Fuhrman, they dont do their research, and present something as fact, when it isnt. The books shouldnt have even been presented at trial.
You really think if they found that much stuff in MJ's house, that this wouldnt have been exhibits 1 2 3 4 5 and on and on presented at the trial? Why werent they? Why did they present The Boys book as being an explicit book when it was proven it wasnt?
You are allowed your own opinion, not your own facts. Not addressing the basic facts that even Siri knows the damn answer to, and takes miliseconds to Google, doesnt excuse being so blind to basic info. Its plain ignorance.
only one of those books contained explicit imagery. Wade Robeson the guy who has now changed his mind, who in 2005 said MJ never did anything, now says he was abused. But anyways in 2005 Robeson said the main book presented at trial was not explicit, nor was it illicit.
Janet Arvizo consulted with a lawyer in Jan 2000, about suing MJ for molesting her son. This was months before MJ had met either the mom or the son.
How can you attack tiger woods without lack of pure court / jury concluded evidence and then defend micheal Jackson so passionately?
Woods allegedly had a troop of legal women he had relations with. Jackson allegedly had a troop of underage boys he had relations with.
You condemn Woods yet give Jackson a pass.
If true ... Which is worse?
:corn:
The basic grade school answer would be, Tiger admitted it. We know he did it, because he said he did. With MJ, all anyone has is speculation. You cant claim otherwise.
Wonderwall really isnt that impressive lyrically. But its one of the greatest songs of all time.
And now I know what I'm dealing with.
Listen... go dance to Michael Jackson and have fun doing so. And proclaim Oasis as one of the greatest bands of all time as well- they did it themselves so why not? I'll stick with my personal tastes and I'll even restrict myself from commenting on such poor taste if you could just agree to stop flaunting your 'enlightened' sense of being.
Wonderwall really isnt that impressive lyrically. But its one of the greatest songs of all time.
And now I know what I'm dealing with.
Listen... go dance to Michael Jackson and have fun doing so. And proclaim Oasis as one of the greatest bands of all time as well- they did it themselves so why not? I'll stick with my personal tastes and I'll even restrict myself from commenting on such poor taste if you could just agree to stop flaunting your 'enlightened' sense of being.
Sure, i'll agree to that. If you can do so without being rude and passive aggressive about it.
Add to all this something that cannot be disputed: Jackson (and his estate) bought the rights to Beatles songs and then sold off some of them for advertise products and in doing so, sold off their integrity- another form of perversion.
Not really seeing the correlation. Its off topic, and it does a serious disservice to equate any sort of illegal activity or abuse with buying the rights to beatles songs. Are you seriously making that comparison?
Add to all this something that cannot be disputed: Jackson (and his estate) bought the rights to Beatles songs and then sold off some of them for advertise products and in doing so, sold off their integrity- another form of perversion.
Not really seeing the correlation. Its off topic, and it does a serious disservice to equate any sort of illegal activity or abuse with buying the rights to beatles songs. Are you seriously making that comparison?
No, I'm not making a comparison or correlation between trashing the integrity of great music with sexual abuse. I'm just saying that, in my opinion, they are both forms of perversion (as in "1. to alter (something) from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended" and 2. to lead (someone) away from what is considered right, natural, or acceptable"), that's all. I didn't intend to throw the thread off topic. It's just something that came up in some reading I've been doing. Please, carry on.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
It is very possible that he didn't actually touch anyone and that people are accusing him because he's eccentric and stinking rich but isn't it also possible that these are the same reasons that people are excusing his actions? I mean I hear a lot of 'he's a freak and has the money to cover it up so he must have done it' but I'm also hearing a lot of 'he was just a weirdo and child-like, they just wanted his money, he didn't do it'. I guess my point is, just because some have accused him in the past and either been unreliable or taken the hush money, does not mean we should shut the book on any future accusations.
Makes sense. But if the evidence isnt there, it isnt there, and then you either need to uncover this missing evidence linking him to it, or you drop the case and say "not guilty". Both cases that were brought to trial seem to scream exploitation and extortion of MJ by the families of the accusers. Could he have abused others but not those boys? Highly unlikely.
I think its clear both cases were extortion. And that shows a pattern. On both parties. I think MJ was desperate for friendship and to be a kid and let anyone in his life, even those who took advantage of him. His doctor is prime example. But I think it also shows that people took advantadge of him because he was rich.
Any time someone talks about extortion or makes up stories, that usually for me, sends a red flag that this person is a liar and not trustworthy. But in the media world, that just fuels the ratings.
Look, at the end of day, all I'm trying to get across is that you seem strongly against the fact that he did this. You can't ignore that he slept with other people's children, that they found not one but multiple photos of naked children and he himself wanted to look/act like a child. Does this make him automatically guilty? No. Should this arouse suspicion, hell yeah.
Im not a fan of MJ but i can tell you that even if it were an artist i admired, I would strongly disagree with him/her sharing a bed with children. I have no doubt that there have been dodgy families sniffing around for money but allegations like this MUST be taken seriously.
“ "Thank you Palestrina. It’s a wonderful evening, it’s great to be here and I wanna dedicate you a super sexy song." " (last words of Mark Sandman of Morphine)
Adelaide 1998
Adelaide 2003
Adelaide 2006 night 1
Adelaide 2006 night 2
Adelaide 2009
Melbourne 2009
Christchurch NZ 2009
Eddie Vedder, Adelaide 2011
PJ20 USA 2011 night 1
PJ20 USA 2011 night 2
Adelaide BIG DAY OUT 2014
It is very possible that he didn't actually touch anyone and that people are accusing him because he's eccentric and stinking rich but isn't it also possible that these are the same reasons that people are excusing his actions? I mean I hear a lot of 'he's a freak and has the money to cover it up so he must have done it' but I'm also hearing a lot of 'he was just a weirdo and child-like, they just wanted his money, he didn't do it'. I guess my point is, just because some have accused him in the past and either been unreliable or taken the hush money, does not mean we should shut the book on any future accusations.
Makes sense. But if the evidence isnt there, it isnt there, and then you either need to uncover this missing evidence linking him to it, or you drop the case and say "not guilty". Both cases that were brought to trial seem to scream exploitation and extortion of MJ by the families of the accusers. Could he have abused others but not those boys? Highly unlikely.
I think its clear both cases were extortion. And that shows a pattern. On both parties. I think MJ was desperate for friendship and to be a kid and let anyone in his life, even those who took advantage of him. His doctor is prime example. But I think it also shows that people took advantadge of him because he was rich.
Any time someone talks about extortion or makes up stories, that usually for me, sends a red flag that this person is a liar and not trustworthy. But in the media world, that just fuels the ratings.
Look, at the end of day, all I'm trying to get across is that you seem strongly against the fact that he did this. You can't ignore that he slept with other people's children, that they found not one but multiple photos of naked children and he himself wanted to look/act like a child. Does this make him automatically guilty? No. Should this arouse suspicion, hell yeah.
Im not a fan of MJ but i can tell you that even if it were an artist i admired, I would strongly disagree with him/her sharing a bed with children. I have no doubt that there have been dodgy families sniffing around for money but allegations like this MUST be taken seriously.
And is everyone else strongly against the idea that he is innocent? It works both ways.
MJ is and was an artist i admire. It wouldnt matter if it was joe blow on the street or the most famous person in the world. Ive given money to the WM3, to Mumia, to Peltier. Ive written letters to local political prisoners. Im against the death penalty, think our justice system is racist, corrupt and beyond repair, and if called for jury duty would give a speech saying I couldnt serve because I dont believe in the justice system. I practice what I preach. My posts in 2006 are exactly the same as in 2013.
As I said, sharing a bed with children is frowned upon. That has nothing to do with whether or not he abused children. In fact, it has zero to do with it. He wasnt, or shouldnt have been put on trial for sharing a bed with child. That wasnt the issue.
Thats a fundamental misunderstanding of how law and the justice system works. If your house was raided tonight and they found books about Bundy and Gacy. The cops have no reason at all to think or suspect or even to haul you in Even if you are a suspect, they have to prove you were with the victim, or were in the state at that time etc...
I deal in hard facts. Innuendo, slander, did he or didnt he hearsay doesnt phase me. If Im sending someone to the electric chair I damn well better be 100 percent certain they are guilty as sin.
You are right MJ's sleeping in the bed with children did cause eyebrows to raise. And he was investigated. And nothing was found. In fact, we found out a hell of alot more about Janet Arvizo than MJ. And all of it negative.
I am not an MJ fan in the least. I don't like pop music. but my take on it is that he did nothing lewd against any child. I feel like he was a child in and of himself, and he just enjoyed their company because his childhood was "stolen" by fame. he envied the innocence that he never got to experience.
there has never been a shred of evidence that wasn't circumstantial against him. just because he was weird doesn't mean he committed any criminal act.
it's a fucking witch hunt because he was different and rich.
THIS^. As I said, had there been some sort of smoking gun linking MJ to the two accusers you dont think that would have been front page news for all eternity? The books and magazines found didnt convict or get him found guilty, because the jury actually saw through the prosecutions lies. The books and magazines were big news because...they werent big news. It means nothing to have those books in your house. I own Fight Club. I happen to agree with Palaniuk's politics, but Im sure there are plenty who just like him for his writing, or like the movie because it has Brad in it, or whatever. The prosecutions laughable premise was that only a pedophile would own those books. And it was proven thats just not the case. You cant judge someone by the art they consume. Or the books on their bookshelves. Thats like puritanical garbage there my friends.
anyone who has read any cursory info on MJ knows about his childhood as you point out. I think, much like we see currently with Beiber and Demi Lovato and Amanda Bynes, fame early can seriously mess you up. I dont think MJ ever got over it, and spent the rest of his life trying to reclaim a childhood that was stolen from him.
As I said, sleepovers with minors, and all that, that may be frowned upon, but it doesnt prove anything in terms of saying "yeah he did it". And its actually a huge leap.
Its sickening how someone like MJ can be branded something and no amount of evidence to the contrary can move people to reaccess. But when you post factual information about the parents of the accusers, few if anyone even responds.
People are blinded by their ignorance.
Exactly this. I couldn't give a damn about Jacko, was never a fan per say, although I can easily see how talented he was and how bloody good at what he was. He changed the world of music and was very unique.
He wasn't normal, not by any stretch, but seeing him interviewed it was always hard not to pity him. He had everything anyone could ever hope for, but he always came across a tortured soul and deeply deeply unhappy. He had very few true friends, and those he thought were bled him dry. His family were blood hounds, and what was left was a very troubled man with no perception of his own identity. That is tremendously sad.
Yet so many are prepared to slam him and chastise him, and blindly proclaim that anyone who suggests he wasn't a molestor is plainly odd......
Jacko remains an easy target.
If he did the things he was accused of, whatever his mindset and lack of childhood then he was nothing but pure filth, those things can NEVER be excused
YET
After 20 years of rumours, and a huge investigation that spanned years and ruined him personally TWICE - its fair to say there was never aver compelling evidence, money helps sure, but no amount of money can allow a person to hide for that long. If its proved one day then so be it, but I wont be led like a lamb by a media hellbent on selling another million papers. I like to use my own brain and make up my own mind rather than be told what is right.
As for the OJ comparison....different case entirely. I have no idea about that one. Never followed it and although I see what people are doing there, that's hardly how the rule of law works. Just because one guy got off doesn't mean that's what happens for every rich dude.
You have actually spoken down to several people- including myself.
You are not coming across as a person of integrity as you so proudly proclaimed. You're actually coming across as a something much different.
If you are 15... then excuse what I have said, but if you are older... then you might wish to revisit your tactics when trying to present an argument that Michael Jackson, a grown man who sleeps with little boys, was a victim of a public witch hunt after some really shitty families accused him of molesting their children when their children stayed the night at their place.
The families you speak of do have issues. I mean, who lets their child sleep over at a freak's house? But this issue aside... at a very minimum... MJ liked children and had some very inappropriate relations with them which is fucking terrible.
Not that I really care, but go back to page 4 as one example and you will find the 'down talking' going the other way. Its not important in terms of the debate to be had, which I have to say musicismylife78 has presented extremely well and intelligently. Whereas on the other hand the argument to oppose those was 'he was a freak, weirdo, and was plaining a 'fiddler' '.....that can be very frustrating when someone takes the time and applies the thought to explain himself and be articulate about a subject that he clearly knows a lot about.
the fact the two confessions were spearheaded and led by the parents, tells you all you need to know.
enjoyed reading your well thought out and rounded comments in this thread.
MJ struggled with these stories whilst alive and had to endure very public trials regarding them, and was found innocent. People will never let it lie, which is a shame, attacking a man who can no longer defend himself from beyond the grave in an attempt at sensationalist media headlines is pretty pathetic.
Sure he wasn't what many would consider 'normal', sure his life was a circus (mostly through being a child star and thoroughly exploited), and sure he was robbed of his childhood, and was uber wealthy as a result.....but to jump on the bandwagon time and time again through 'what you are told by the news' without knowing anything more is quite sad.
I guess O.J. was innocent too, right? Just because you're found innocent in court doesn't mean that you are!!
Money= the best lawyers or the ability to pay outrageous settlements.
Repeat, he was a diddler!! Too bad his death wasn't slow and extremely painful.
to tie into what pdalowsky just wrote, I think OJ and the MJ case are two seperate issues. I think clearly the OJ case involved alot more than a rich football star using fame and money to win a case. Race, Rodney King, the racist LAPD, mark fuhrmann and a completely incompetant and third rate investigation and prosecution team all were major reasons why OJ was aquitted. Ive long believed at least in the OJ case, the LAPD framed a guilty man. Any prosecution who's star witness is Mark Fuhrmann you have to seriously wonder about their sanity. The Time Magazine racist cover of OJ. The recent LA riots. Increased awareness of police brutality.
Plus the fact that Fuhrmann found most of the evidence also I think left people feeling a but funny. As well as Fung missing those blood spots, then of course returning two weeks later to get them.
If anything, Id blame the LAPD for the verdict in the OJ case. They dug their own grave. The brutalizing of KIng, the LA riots, Fuhrmann and a team of investigators who seemed to be completely incompetant at even the most basic of things their job required.
I would never say the guy needed the electric chair because quite frankly, I don't know him personally. He could have been a lovely guy but he may also have been a sick bastard. My argument is that we shouldn't be basing one person's allegations on previous ones just in case he actually is telling the truth. I don't feel like I've talked down to you have I? I apologise if I have.
“ "Thank you Palestrina. It’s a wonderful evening, it’s great to be here and I wanna dedicate you a super sexy song." " (last words of Mark Sandman of Morphine)
Adelaide 1998
Adelaide 2003
Adelaide 2006 night 1
Adelaide 2006 night 2
Adelaide 2009
Melbourne 2009
Christchurch NZ 2009
Eddie Vedder, Adelaide 2011
PJ20 USA 2011 night 1
PJ20 USA 2011 night 2
Adelaide BIG DAY OUT 2014
Comments
there has never been a shred of evidence that wasn't circumstantial against him. just because he was weird doesn't mean he committed any criminal act.
it's a fucking witch hunt because he was different and rich.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Might want to look at the thread again friend. The only side presented by everyone, almost to a man, was that MJ was a molester and a billion other things. I seem to be the only person presented another side of the story. And there is always two sides my friend. Ive yet to see a single person acknowledge anything about the Arvizo's or the Chandlers.
Im not going to sit by and watch people who dont know what they are talking about slander someone. I would have been the first guy in line to demand MJ's head if the evidence was there. The fact is, its just not. Two problematic confessions by two problematic families with less than stellar histories. That doesnt cut it for me. But ive always been someone who roots for fair justice.
I agree. You should turn off Nancy Grace and deal with the real MJ. Not the one we got crammed down our throats for decades as some wierdo oddball. He was a human being. Much of that junk we got peddled was a load of crap.
I am a person of integrity. And thus I demand others be as well. The fact that anyone would sit here with a straight face and say "The NE is a legitmate news source" tells you all you need to know about why we went to Iraq, and why some of the public still believes Saddam was involved in 9/11.
People want soundbytes. 30 second wrapups in Parade, or newsbytes. They dont have the patience to read two paragraphs into a story to decide the source is a tabloid rag.
Im not going to believe MJ abused kids because the evidence isnt there. Books, magazines do not a molester make.
Im waiting for chadwick and everyone else to invite us to their house to show us their internet history and their own magazines.
You can believe the Nancy Grace 30 second "he's a weirdo he did it" line. Or you can do a 30 second google search and find out the real story.
Why is it so hard for you to believe that the Arvizos and the Chandlers were exploitative people who used a friendship with MJ to tarnish his image and become big news? Why is that so hard to imagine?
Its not so hard to imagine because we know it to be demonstrably true, the Arvizos acted the SAME DAMN way with Leno, Tucker and Lopez. You really think they found MJ and went "OH DEAR LORD, I had a change of heart, he's worth hundreds of millions but we will treat him as a human being"?
You are naive.
Adelaide 1998
Adelaide 2003
Adelaide 2006 night 1
Adelaide 2006 night 2
Adelaide 2009
Melbourne 2009
Christchurch NZ 2009
Eddie Vedder, Adelaide 2011
PJ20 USA 2011 night 1
PJ20 USA 2011 night 2
Adelaide BIG DAY OUT 2014
THIS^. As I said, had there been some sort of smoking gun linking MJ to the two accusers you dont think that would have been front page news for all eternity? The books and magazines found didnt convict or get him found guilty, because the jury actually saw through the prosecutions lies. The books and magazines were big news because...they werent big news. It means nothing to have those books in your house. I own Fight Club. I happen to agree with Palaniuk's politics, but Im sure there are plenty who just like him for his writing, or like the movie because it has Brad in it, or whatever. The prosecutions laughable premise was that only a pedophile would own those books. And it was proven thats just not the case. You cant judge someone by the art they consume. Or the books on their bookshelves. Thats like puritanical garbage there my friends.
anyone who has read any cursory info on MJ knows about his childhood as you point out. I think, much like we see currently with Beiber and Demi Lovato and Amanda Bynes, fame early can seriously mess you up. I dont think MJ ever got over it, and spent the rest of his life trying to reclaim a childhood that was stolen from him.
As I said, sleepovers with minors, and all that, that may be frowned upon, but it doesnt prove anything in terms of saying "yeah he did it". And its actually a huge leap.
Its sickening how someone like MJ can be branded something and no amount of evidence to the contrary can move people to reaccess. But when you post factual information about the parents of the accusers, few if anyone even responds.
People are blinded by their ignorance.
The idea that he may actually have been completely innocent, and that he died as a result of the pain and ridicule and harassment he recieved I think people don't want to hear it or believe it. I think its obvious the drug use was a result of all this.
I think theres ample evidence that this was actually the case.
People have an image in their mind, and most people dont like being told they are wrong.
If MJ was innocent his last 20 years would be seen as essentially the media and public hounding him to death. And I think thats exactly what happened
Makes sense. But if the evidence isnt there, it isnt there, and then you either need to uncover this missing evidence linking him to it, or you drop the case and say "not guilty". Both cases that were brought to trial seem to scream exploitation and extortion of MJ by the families of the accusers. Could he have abused others but not those boys? Highly unlikely.
I think its clear both cases were extortion. And that shows a pattern. On both parties. I think MJ was desperate for friendship and to be a kid and let anyone in his life, even those who took advantage of him. His doctor is prime example. But I think it also shows that people took advantadge of him because he was rich.
Any time someone talks about extortion or makes up stories, that usually for me, sends a red flag that this person is a liar and not trustworthy. But in the media world, that just fuels the ratings.
It negates much else of value, at least from here.
I dont know. I respect peoples right to disagree, but this thread really hasnt been about examining the sides of the issue. Its been for the most part a lets dump on MJ thread. The OP blatantly posted an article written by a supermarket tabloid, and I think expected people to go along with it and not come back with facts about things. Im not willing to do that. Refusing to acknowledge proven facts like proven extortion, lies and the like also negates any point the OP or anyone else was trying to make. It goes both ways, hedonist. The "MJ haters" arent acting civilized. Calling him names, slurring him. Thats not really kosher, nor is it polite, or even justified.
And in general, i would in real life, act the same way if I met someone who said "The Beatles arent that good" or "Nirvana werent revolutionary' or "I hate Pink Floyd"
Theres some things I think that you can sort of agree as being important and essential whether or not you like them.
Same with MJ and his music. people that are saying his music sucks or he wasnt important honestly dont have a grasp on music history or MJ's music.
There also is a correlation between the tabloid media/tmz and all that, and the sort of lies people believe. It masks larger issues. When we are focusing on Beibers meltdown, we arent focusing on issues that really matter.
Thats just the facts hedonist.
Its one thing to say you dont like the music, you are free to dislike OTW and Thriller and Bad and Dangerous, but to write him off by saying "his music sucks, he isnt important", is the height of everything I dislike about people who listen to "only music they like" and nothing else. People take things like that seriously. And make it seem like it matters.
Personally I dont care what MJ did to his skin, or whether he had the elephant man's bones, or whether he slept in a hyperbaric chamber. He was an incredible dancer, an incredible musician, and a brilliant artist.
But hey, Im just a fan of music so...
Says the guy that every no-name band in the last decade is destined for 'classic' status along the lines of Zeppelin and the Stones. The way you go on in the other thread... anyone who has farted into a microphone borders on awesome. In actuality, Michael Jackson is gargantuan because mindless fools dance to it and sing along with the really simple lyrics. This fact doesn't make him a musical genius- my point stands.
You haven't merely presented a side... you've pushed hard to make MJ a victim instead of the pedophile which he is. Possession of what you call 'art' (child pornography) and having his money and lawyers squash shitty little people is enough to convince most people that this is not a cool situation to say the least.
This isn't about logical debate and discussion... this is about you having your head in a place it shouldn't be and expecting others to have their's there too.
Don't... touch... children.
He did. He was weird. It doesn't excuse him from acting poorly. Any other adult in society would be facing serious scrutiny as well given the same circumstnaces- except they wouldn't have the same amount of support behind them to suppress the ramifications for behaving so poorly.
Nah, i just have a open mind, and am willing to listen to stuff beyond alt rock radio. I dont have to ask mommy for permission to listen to stuff that doesnt fit a certain format or genre style or the parameters of this board or any other board.
Anyone who acts like classic acts havent existed in the last 10 years sounds like an old and bitter 80 year old who complains about the "youngins on the front lawn".
Ive always been interested in the importance and musicality of pop music and avantegarde stuff. People who listen to some sort of style exclusively are boring and staid. We have trillions of styles of music out there, who in the hell wants to spend their entire life listening to only one genre?
MJ changed music forever. Via dance. Via song. Via song writing. Via music videos. Thriller and Off the Wall and Bad and Dangerous changed the musical and artistic landscape. His dance moves rival that of the greats like Gene Kelly and James Brown and Astaire. His music videos were more like mini movies and pushed the art form forward. And he wrote and recorded plain brilliant songs.
Ive never understood the idea that simple catchy songs equal not important or are somehow lesser than a Dylan or Radiohead song. We need both. And quite honestly, the catchy simple songs get stuck in our heads for a reason. SOmebody That I Used To Know is a simple song. But theres a reason Gotye blew up after that. Its a brilliant song. It just is. He wasnt Dylan in it, and he didnt need to be. Wonderwall really isnt that impressive lyrically. But its one of the greatest songs of all time. To me, catchy and simple are positive. Nick Drake wrote simple songs. The Beatles entire catalogue are simple songs. Why do you think that whenever anyone is learning any instrument, begins learning THOSE songs first?
I re-read some of your posts.
You have actually spoken down to several people- including myself.
You are not coming across as a person of integrity as you so proudly proclaimed. You're actually coming across as a something much different.
If you are 15... then excuse what I have said, but if you are older... then you might wish to revisit your tactics when trying to present an argument that Michael Jackson, a grown man who sleeps with little boys, was a victim of a public witch hunt after some really shitty families accused him of molesting their children when their children stayed the night at their place.
The families you speak of do have issues. I mean, who lets their child sleep over at a freak's house? But this issue aside... at a very minimum... MJ liked children and had some very inappropriate relations with them which is fucking terrible.
So possession of art, which it was deemed by anyone who takes 10 seconds to google it, is tantmount to molestation.
Interesting. So, Janet Arvizo, who made up and took to court a lie that she was sexually assaulted at JC Penny, and demanded payment for it to the tune of 10's of thousands, so she gets a free pass? And Leno, Lopez and Tucker who all agreed that Janet was a theiving exploitative person who would do anything to get money, that is ignored too? Why? Why are art books that the prosecution lazily presented, why are those the only "facts" you acknowledge.
Its the prosecutions lazy and loser actions that result in ignorance. It takes what, a few phone calls to figure out the context of the books? Instead like those goons in the LAPD with Fuhrman, they dont do their research, and present something as fact, when it isnt. The books shouldnt have even been presented at trial.
You really think if they found that much stuff in MJ's house, that this wouldnt have been exhibits 1 2 3 4 5 and on and on presented at the trial? Why werent they? Why did they present The Boys book as being an explicit book when it was proven it wasnt?
You are allowed your own opinion, not your own facts. Not addressing the basic facts that even Siri knows the damn answer to, and takes miliseconds to Google, doesnt excuse being so blind to basic info. Its plain ignorance.
The basic grade school answer would be, Tiger admitted it. We know he did it, because he said he did. With MJ, all anyone has is speculation. You cant claim otherwise.
And now I know what I'm dealing with.
Listen... go dance to Michael Jackson and have fun doing so. And proclaim Oasis as one of the greatest bands of all time as well- they did it themselves so why not? I'll stick with my personal tastes and I'll even restrict myself from commenting on such poor taste if you could just agree to stop flaunting your 'enlightened' sense of being.
Sure, i'll agree to that. If you can do so without being rude and passive aggressive about it.
What is reported?
Your two posts calling people ignorant... or the fact that you are arguing something you shouldn't be arguing?
Not really seeing the correlation. Its off topic, and it does a serious disservice to equate any sort of illegal activity or abuse with buying the rights to beatles songs. Are you seriously making that comparison?
No, I'm not making a comparison or correlation between trashing the integrity of great music with sexual abuse. I'm just saying that, in my opinion, they are both forms of perversion (as in "1. to alter (something) from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended" and 2. to lead (someone) away from what is considered right, natural, or acceptable"), that's all. I didn't intend to throw the thread off topic. It's just something that came up in some reading I've been doing. Please, carry on.
Im not a fan of MJ but i can tell you that even if it were an artist i admired, I would strongly disagree with him/her sharing a bed with children. I have no doubt that there have been dodgy families sniffing around for money but allegations like this MUST be taken seriously.
Adelaide 1998
Adelaide 2003
Adelaide 2006 night 1
Adelaide 2006 night 2
Adelaide 2009
Melbourne 2009
Christchurch NZ 2009
Eddie Vedder, Adelaide 2011
PJ20 USA 2011 night 1
PJ20 USA 2011 night 2
Adelaide BIG DAY OUT 2014
And is everyone else strongly against the idea that he is innocent? It works both ways.
MJ is and was an artist i admire. It wouldnt matter if it was joe blow on the street or the most famous person in the world. Ive given money to the WM3, to Mumia, to Peltier. Ive written letters to local political prisoners. Im against the death penalty, think our justice system is racist, corrupt and beyond repair, and if called for jury duty would give a speech saying I couldnt serve because I dont believe in the justice system. I practice what I preach. My posts in 2006 are exactly the same as in 2013.
As I said, sharing a bed with children is frowned upon. That has nothing to do with whether or not he abused children. In fact, it has zero to do with it. He wasnt, or shouldnt have been put on trial for sharing a bed with child. That wasnt the issue.
Thats a fundamental misunderstanding of how law and the justice system works. If your house was raided tonight and they found books about Bundy and Gacy. The cops have no reason at all to think or suspect or even to haul you in Even if you are a suspect, they have to prove you were with the victim, or were in the state at that time etc...
I deal in hard facts. Innuendo, slander, did he or didnt he hearsay doesnt phase me. If Im sending someone to the electric chair I damn well better be 100 percent certain they are guilty as sin.
You are right MJ's sleeping in the bed with children did cause eyebrows to raise. And he was investigated. And nothing was found. In fact, we found out a hell of alot more about Janet Arvizo than MJ. And all of it negative.
Exactly this. I couldn't give a damn about Jacko, was never a fan per say, although I can easily see how talented he was and how bloody good at what he was. He changed the world of music and was very unique.
He wasn't normal, not by any stretch, but seeing him interviewed it was always hard not to pity him. He had everything anyone could ever hope for, but he always came across a tortured soul and deeply deeply unhappy. He had very few true friends, and those he thought were bled him dry. His family were blood hounds, and what was left was a very troubled man with no perception of his own identity. That is tremendously sad.
Yet so many are prepared to slam him and chastise him, and blindly proclaim that anyone who suggests he wasn't a molestor is plainly odd......
Jacko remains an easy target.
If he did the things he was accused of, whatever his mindset and lack of childhood then he was nothing but pure filth, those things can NEVER be excused
YET
After 20 years of rumours, and a huge investigation that spanned years and ruined him personally TWICE - its fair to say there was never aver compelling evidence, money helps sure, but no amount of money can allow a person to hide for that long. If its proved one day then so be it, but I wont be led like a lamb by a media hellbent on selling another million papers. I like to use my own brain and make up my own mind rather than be told what is right.
As for the OJ comparison....different case entirely. I have no idea about that one. Never followed it and although I see what people are doing there, that's hardly how the rule of law works. Just because one guy got off doesn't mean that's what happens for every rich dude.
Not that I really care, but go back to page 4 as one example and you will find the 'down talking' going the other way. Its not important in terms of the debate to be had, which I have to say musicismylife78 has presented extremely well and intelligently. Whereas on the other hand the argument to oppose those was 'he was a freak, weirdo, and was plaining a 'fiddler' '.....that can be very frustrating when someone takes the time and applies the thought to explain himself and be articulate about a subject that he clearly knows a lot about.
to tie into what pdalowsky just wrote, I think OJ and the MJ case are two seperate issues. I think clearly the OJ case involved alot more than a rich football star using fame and money to win a case. Race, Rodney King, the racist LAPD, mark fuhrmann and a completely incompetant and third rate investigation and prosecution team all were major reasons why OJ was aquitted. Ive long believed at least in the OJ case, the LAPD framed a guilty man. Any prosecution who's star witness is Mark Fuhrmann you have to seriously wonder about their sanity. The Time Magazine racist cover of OJ. The recent LA riots. Increased awareness of police brutality.
Plus the fact that Fuhrmann found most of the evidence also I think left people feeling a but funny. As well as Fung missing those blood spots, then of course returning two weeks later to get them.
If anything, Id blame the LAPD for the verdict in the OJ case. They dug their own grave. The brutalizing of KIng, the LA riots, Fuhrmann and a team of investigators who seemed to be completely incompetant at even the most basic of things their job required.
Adelaide 1998
Adelaide 2003
Adelaide 2006 night 1
Adelaide 2006 night 2
Adelaide 2009
Melbourne 2009
Christchurch NZ 2009
Eddie Vedder, Adelaide 2011
PJ20 USA 2011 night 1
PJ20 USA 2011 night 2
Adelaide BIG DAY OUT 2014
Loooooove how music now knows why Jackson did drugs, just like he knows that Tiger all of a sudden loves his kids more. This fucking guy.
each is entitled to his opinion, opinions that are expressed extremely well.
Surely most parents love their kids? That wouldn't be a tough thing to believe right?